Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Kent, You have pointed out to an excellent source. Do you have any answer for the transcendental argument? Please note that, according to the article, Bahnsen has already addressed all of the objections to the argument in different places, but please attempt one so we can extend the substance of this thread.
Juanfer
-
Juan, The other day you implicitly made reference to ideas very like this TAG or its conclusion. Chris Lossinger then (incorrectly) sought to accuse you of Question Begging.
Well, I don't think he was all that wrong about his accusation of Question Begging. The problem is that he did not address how is it even possible not to do it when we argue matters of ultimate authority for, if we resort to something else, that 'something else' becomes our new ultimate authority and that nulifies our first claim. If this is such a grievous sin against a rule in stone, he has to explain why or accept it dogmatically, which will automatically prove my point about his worldview that won't accept anything that cannot be shown. Please note his very elaborate 'argument' to my statement "But then, you have to use logic to study logic, don't you? Guess what... this is circular reasoning."
Chris Losinger wrote:
err... no.
Juanfer
-
Not really the same thing. Edit:
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God which attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God.
My argument is not that all knowledge is meaningless "apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God." Rather, my argument is that SINCE 1) if one denies that there is a Creator-God, logically one must ultimately deny that one's own self exists; 2) the ultimate logical conclusion of 1) is absurd; 3) THEREFORE, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the denial that there is a Creator-God is false; 3a) which is to say, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the affirmation that there is a Creator-God is true. Quite a different argument. -- modified at 8:24 Thursday 22nd February, 2007 Edit again: more from the Wiki article:
The TAG is a transcendental argument which attempts to prove that the Christian God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. R. L. Dabney shed some light on what is meant by "impossibility of the contrary" when he wrote:
A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]
Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:
We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own
Ilíon wrote:
Not really the same thing.
It was your initial email that had me thinking you were going down the "No God, no logic" route:
I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan: The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists. It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
I agree, no human hope for this conversation. I have never seen such display of knowledge under the claim that no knowledge is possible. Blessings, my friend.
Juanfer
Well, you can look at this way if you like. God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new. Philisophically, we can debate and theorize, but til we experience, we can't know. Once we experience we can think we know, but our experience could also only be valid for ourselves. When communicated to another it becomes valid only in relation to the other's experience. This is why as philosophy we can share it all, but religiously it must be a personal matter of discovery and adventure. Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her. This is why faith is so important. By our faith alone shall we find God. Its also the seeking and finding that's important. The personal journey of discovery.
This statement was never false.
-
I agree, no human hope for this conversation. I have never seen such display of knowledge under the claim that no knowledge is possible. Blessings, my friend.
Juanfer
Or rather that knowledge can be possible, but is subject to change, as the living truth changes with time and space. At any point, God is free to mix it up. And what we counted as knowledge has expired. So, we just can't take it for granted that knowledge isn't also a dynamic changing element of reality. Truly, for all we know we could be a dreaming butterfly.
This statement was never false.
-
Well, you can look at this way if you like. God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new. Philisophically, we can debate and theorize, but til we experience, we can't know. Once we experience we can think we know, but our experience could also only be valid for ourselves. When communicated to another it becomes valid only in relation to the other's experience. This is why as philosophy we can share it all, but religiously it must be a personal matter of discovery and adventure. Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her. This is why faith is so important. By our faith alone shall we find God. Its also the seeking and finding that's important. The personal journey of discovery.
This statement was never false.
Chris, Trying to make you explain how you know so many things about God without actually 'knowing' them did not work, so let me convert, temporarily, to your religion.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
til we experience, we can't know
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her.
My name is Dexter and I am a Beatrizian. I agree with you about all these things. According to my experience god, in his dynamic nature and right to change anything he wants, decided, just a couple of months after Thomas wrote his gospel, that he was not happy with making us brothers but cousins; that way we wouldn’t have to deal much with sibling rivalry. He also realized that having a male example might not be very popular in the XX and XXI centuries, so he decided to change history and send Beatriz instead of Jesus, but 400 years before year 1, because he wanted to give Aristotle and Plato the chance to become Beatrizians too. They had a friend who took on himself the task of giving us an account of their conversion because they were too busy trying to figure out if the world was understandable. The only copy of that account was found in my backyard last year by my dog but I decided to give it away to other people so they could become my cousins. I did not need to do this because I guess they are my cousins anyways, but thought this was a good display of love on my part because god decided to keep this as a good moral value, at least until he changes his mind again. I hope this now makes you happy and you will not disagree with the tale at all because, after all, religion is personal and we should not put any limits on reality, correct? Especially when not even god can! By the way, comparing our experiences, are we now brothers or cousins? Well, it doesn't matter anyways, we're all cool! :)
Juanfer
-
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists
Ilíon,
Ilíon wrote:
quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic
Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold: it is targeted directly to him not as a proof of the argument (this may become evident if you read those posts again with this explanation in mind), but as a confrontation with content he may otherwise never see again because of his natural rejection towards the Scriptures, which also happen to be the grounds for the philosophical challenge he still has to answer; but it is also targeted indirectly to me as a reminder of who really is the ultimate authority whenever I try to make any truth claim, to keep me away from the ever present tendency towards arrogance, self-praise and reliance on my own 'unaided reason'. With the believer I use the Bible as proof, as I am intending to do here:
Ilíon wrote:
to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
To prove the existence of God, shall we start with our 'self' or God's? Biblical perspective "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pr 1:7) "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps 14:1) There is a natural tendency for us, as I usually experience, to meet the humanist in his own unchallenged terms without realizing that, in so doing, we are conceding a terrain they cannot claim as theirs, as we have done to this day with science. This approach, nevertheless, can be taken if our purpose is to show how their position leads only to absurdity, because the truth has nothing to fear from exposure to the light. What is the biblical approach? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Pr 26:4,5) "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:5). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ag
-
Ilíon,
Ilíon wrote:
quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic
Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold: it is targeted directly to him not as a proof of the argument (this may become evident if you read those posts again with this explanation in mind), but as a confrontation with content he may otherwise never see again because of his natural rejection towards the Scriptures, which also happen to be the grounds for the philosophical challenge he still has to answer; but it is also targeted indirectly to me as a reminder of who really is the ultimate authority whenever I try to make any truth claim, to keep me away from the ever present tendency towards arrogance, self-praise and reliance on my own 'unaided reason'. With the believer I use the Bible as proof, as I am intending to do here:
Ilíon wrote:
to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
To prove the existence of God, shall we start with our 'self' or God's? Biblical perspective "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pr 1:7) "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps 14:1) There is a natural tendency for us, as I usually experience, to meet the humanist in his own unchallenged terms without realizing that, in so doing, we are conceding a terrain they cannot claim as theirs, as we have done to this day with science. This approach, nevertheless, can be taken if our purpose is to show how their position leads only to absurdity, because the truth has nothing to fear from exposure to the light. What is the biblical approach? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Pr 26:4,5) "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:5). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ag
Ilíon: "... quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic." Juanfer: "Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold ... " But, the point is precisely that the unbeliever does not recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. If he did, he wouldn't be an unbeliever, he'd be a Christian, or at least a Jew (by which I mean "adherent of Judaism," rather than "leftist secularist whose grandparents happened to have been an adherents of Judaism"). And, just as pointedly, if a believer's *reason* for recognizing the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge really does go no deeper than that the Bible claims to communicate messages from God, then he has no rational argument whatsoever against Islam or Mormonism or the Unification Church, or any number of other false doctrines. And, in fact, if that is as deep as his intellectual commitment to Christ goes, then when the personal crisis-point comes, he is more likely to switch his allegience to one of the multitude of false doctrines than to stick with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all trying to claim that intellectual committment (reasonings) alone is sufficient to ground a saving faith in Christ. It isn't. If one's "faith" is *merely* a matter of the intellect, then (as you so rightly make reference) one will inevitably become arrogant and self-righteous in one's (self-)vaunted intellectual prowess. Which is to say, one will not really be a Christian. The whole man must come to Christ. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with one's cry of desperate loneliness and one does not also then *reason* through to a mature and reasonable faith, then one's committment will not last much longer than the memory of the emotion. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with a rational appraisal and affirmation of the claims of the Bible and one does not then tame one's emotions and imaginings in light of that reasoning, then one's committment will likely be overwhelmed in some future emotional storm. 'Atheists' don't recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Therefore, quoting the Bible will make no headway with them and will merely give them adequate reasonable grounds for rejecting any argument you are trying to make -- because your argument will always be circular, which is to say, *illogical.* And illogical arguments are to be rejec
-
Ilíon: "... quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic." Juanfer: "Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold ... " But, the point is precisely that the unbeliever does not recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. If he did, he wouldn't be an unbeliever, he'd be a Christian, or at least a Jew (by which I mean "adherent of Judaism," rather than "leftist secularist whose grandparents happened to have been an adherents of Judaism"). And, just as pointedly, if a believer's *reason* for recognizing the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge really does go no deeper than that the Bible claims to communicate messages from God, then he has no rational argument whatsoever against Islam or Mormonism or the Unification Church, or any number of other false doctrines. And, in fact, if that is as deep as his intellectual commitment to Christ goes, then when the personal crisis-point comes, he is more likely to switch his allegience to one of the multitude of false doctrines than to stick with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all trying to claim that intellectual committment (reasonings) alone is sufficient to ground a saving faith in Christ. It isn't. If one's "faith" is *merely* a matter of the intellect, then (as you so rightly make reference) one will inevitably become arrogant and self-righteous in one's (self-)vaunted intellectual prowess. Which is to say, one will not really be a Christian. The whole man must come to Christ. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with one's cry of desperate loneliness and one does not also then *reason* through to a mature and reasonable faith, then one's committment will not last much longer than the memory of the emotion. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with a rational appraisal and affirmation of the claims of the Bible and one does not then tame one's emotions and imaginings in light of that reasoning, then one's committment will likely be overwhelmed in some future emotional storm. 'Atheists' don't recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Therefore, quoting the Bible will make no headway with them and will merely give them adequate reasonable grounds for rejecting any argument you are trying to make -- because your argument will always be circular, which is to say, *illogical.* And illogical arguments are to be rejec
Ilíon, Please bear with me and read again my reasons to use Scripture with the unbeliever. It is true that we use reason and it is because we have grounds for it; that is why I started this whole debate, with the ultimate purpose of showing what has become evident all along. The materialist claims to trust in his senses and whatever can be shown, proven or measured, rather than anything immaterial or invisible. But, lo and behold! It turns out that they have built their whole edifice upon the... immaterial and invisible laws of logic, reason and the ethical duty to defend their views; a big castle in the air. I trusted what the Bible already claims to be true about unbelievers. The fact that they deny God does not mean they don't know Him at all; they are supressing this knowledge in unrighteousness. Why trust them in this affirmation? Aren't we all liars in our nature, even more claiming to be atheists? I rather take what the Bible says at face value and then put it to the test with the unbeliever; voilá! he does very well the rest of the job by refuting himself. It is not just that most atheists do not want to become Christians. Chris Losinger thought I was suggesting that he 'wanted' Jesus, when the Biblical statement is that 'nobody' wants God (Rom 3:10) and he has to change the heart, as He did with yours and mine, for anybody to come to Him. I agree that intellect played a key role in the expansion of the Christian church; it could not be otherwise if Christ claimed properly to be The Truth. However, I would disagree in affirming that reason was its sole pillar, as unbelievers can see whether we live up to the standards we claim to hold. The debaters were few, while the witnesses of Christian care, love, meekness and integrity were many, spread throughout the whole Roman Empire. Moreover, the advancement of the church rests first and foremost in the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, for He is its solid foundation. Finally, you seem determined not to start with what the Scriptures claim to be what everybody knows: God. My question is not why the unbeliever does not trust the Bible, the answer has already been given. My question is why you choose not to follow it on this. Blessings.
Juanfer
-
Or rather that knowledge can be possible, but is subject to change, as the living truth changes with time and space. At any point, God is free to mix it up. And what we counted as knowledge has expired. So, we just can't take it for granted that knowledge isn't also a dynamic changing element of reality. Truly, for all we know we could be a dreaming butterfly.
This statement was never false.
-
Ilíon: "... quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic." Juanfer: "Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold ... " But, the point is precisely that the unbeliever does not recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. If he did, he wouldn't be an unbeliever, he'd be a Christian, or at least a Jew (by which I mean "adherent of Judaism," rather than "leftist secularist whose grandparents happened to have been an adherents of Judaism"). And, just as pointedly, if a believer's *reason* for recognizing the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge really does go no deeper than that the Bible claims to communicate messages from God, then he has no rational argument whatsoever against Islam or Mormonism or the Unification Church, or any number of other false doctrines. And, in fact, if that is as deep as his intellectual commitment to Christ goes, then when the personal crisis-point comes, he is more likely to switch his allegience to one of the multitude of false doctrines than to stick with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all trying to claim that intellectual committment (reasonings) alone is sufficient to ground a saving faith in Christ. It isn't. If one's "faith" is *merely* a matter of the intellect, then (as you so rightly make reference) one will inevitably become arrogant and self-righteous in one's (self-)vaunted intellectual prowess. Which is to say, one will not really be a Christian. The whole man must come to Christ. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with one's cry of desperate loneliness and one does not also then *reason* through to a mature and reasonable faith, then one's committment will not last much longer than the memory of the emotion. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with a rational appraisal and affirmation of the claims of the Bible and one does not then tame one's emotions and imaginings in light of that reasoning, then one's committment will likely be overwhelmed in some future emotional storm. 'Atheists' don't recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Therefore, quoting the Bible will make no headway with them and will merely give them adequate reasonable grounds for rejecting any argument you are trying to make -- because your argument will always be circular, which is to say, *illogical.* And illogical arguments are to be rejec
Ilíon, Please check the following from Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm Do you have any IM account? Regards.
Juanfer
-
Ilíon, Please check the following from Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm Do you have any IM account? Regards.
Juanfer
No, I no longer have any sort of IM account. I can be emailed at ilion7@hotmail.com
-
No, I no longer have any sort of IM account. I can be emailed at ilion7@hotmail.com
-
Thanks. I'll send you my e-mail address. You may delete your previous message if you want, to avoid spammers! :)
Juanfer
-
OK, pulling said second paragraph from Wikipedia:
In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life.
Taking the last line of that paragraph, anything could be described as a way of life, and therefore following a political party of even the Atkin's Diet could be a religion using that weak sentence. Taking the paragraph as a whole it begins to become a better description of most religions as it brings in "an unseen being, person or object." With this, the scientific method (and therefore our current understanding of evolution) cease to qualify. The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory. Few theories have reached the realm of Law: momentum, gravity, etc. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, it is not a theory in the sense that lawyers or others commonly use it, but as working scientists define it. In this sense it is a much stronger, heavily tested concept. On the whole religion vs. science non-battle, I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation. Science would not dispute this, as there is no way to prove (or disprove) God on the basis of the scientific method. I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
"I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn." Nonsense ... and also proof of the falsity of the incessant assertions of 'modern evolutionary theorists' that 'modern evolutionary theory' stands up to factual/scientific criticism, that it is scientifically falsifiable. All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that). There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them. Your "theory" is false. Deal with it.
-
You have a good point (I can certainly see that it rated a '5' vote). "Darwinism" doesn't rate even as much intellectual respect as "religion."
Mo-o-o-m! That ol' meanie is pickin' on my religion (aka "Darwinism")! You people are such children. You like to dish out snide one-liners -- which just happen to generally not be true -- against Christianity, and it's congratulations all around. But let someone return the favor towards your religion -- with snide one-liners which just happen to generally be true -- and you throw a snit-fit.
-
I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), but I know you like affirmation, so...
Ilíon wrote:
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.)
That is correct. I understand now that I was being overly sensitive and incorrectly applying that label.
Ilíon wrote:
How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an assertion along that line is coupled, in Catch-22 manner, with an assertion such as the following: "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, you do not have the intellectual standing to criticise it.")
Never my belief at all. Rather, I believe that modern evolutionary theory is our best available explanation of our observations. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any theory to be defined as truth. They are merely testable models based on possible explanation of observations. Good theories are testable, map well to existing observations, and make predictions for future observations. Modern evolutionary theory provides all three. As for criticism, go ahead. It is only through criticism and investigation that theories improve.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), ..." Kent (may I call you that?), *you* keep raising these side-issues -- please recall the original topic of this sub-thread and just who initiated it -- and I keep slapping them down using logical reasoning. And you have not responded with an emotional tantrum, as "Darwinists" typically do, but instead have agreed (whether reluctantly or not) that I have made the case against the objections you are raising. I consider that "going somewhere." You certainly may not like where we are going, but it is indeed "going somewhere." This is where we're going: "'Modern evolutionary theory' is false; it is, in fact, self-contradictory." That is, so long as you keep admiting the evidence of *reason* and if you do not bug-out of the discussion, as it seems here you are saying you are going to do, than that is where we will end up. And we will get there using logic and freely-available and widely-known biological facts and 'modern evolutionary theory' itself. So, for your peace of mind, it may be well that you do not want to continue the discussion that you yourself started. Kent Sharkey: "(take that as victory as you are wont), ..." "Victory" will be when you realize and admit (I say it that way because I do suspect that even now you *realize* the truth of the matter) that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false: 1) that it is scientifically falsified, and 2) that it is logically seen to be false. "Resounding victory" will be when you realize that this has been known for generations. Kent Sharkey: "... but I know you like affirmation, so..." Do I now? And *you* have the power to affirm or dis-affirm me? And here, all this time, I thought my "problem" is that I desire to have things settled, that I desire to have the truth (whatever truth is being argued about at any time) admitted. You see, I really don't like disputation in the first place, and I absolutely loathe going over the same ground ... especially with the same person or group of persons.
Kent Sharkey: [quoting an example of an "argument from ignorance"]
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Ilíon: How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an as
-
"I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn." Nonsense ... and also proof of the falsity of the incessant assertions of 'modern evolutionary theorists' that 'modern evolutionary theory' stands up to factual/scientific criticism, that it is scientifically falsifiable. All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that). There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them. Your "theory" is false. Deal with it.
Ilíon wrote:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that).
That's true, that would work as well, so have at...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ilíon wrote:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that).
That's true, that would work as well, so have at...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "That's true, that would work as well, so have at ..." This could be interesting. I've been trying since late 2001 or early 2002 to get a proponent of 'modern evolutionary theory' to rationally discuss the matter I have in mind. And, by "proponent," I don't merely mean "Joe Schmoe with no background in biology." Some of the 'modern evolutionary theorists' I have tried to discuss this with are scientists with degrees in biology (or, rather, they have presented themselves as such and I have no reason to disbelieve the claim) -- and they have all acted as Chris Losinger acts. You are only the second 'modern evolutionary theorist' I have personally encountered who can even rationally deal with skepticism of the so-called theory (much less deal with the out-right mockery *I* heap upon it), and the other studiously avoided getting into a discussion of this matter. So there are 2 points to this particular post: 1) I think a discussion of this matter merits its own thread. So, I'll start a new topic/thread in the next day or so. It is my hope that this new thread will be a discussion/argument between the two of us to try to get at a certain truth. I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting. But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument. If *you* cannot bring yourself to stand against unreason and against irrational/illogical attempts to silence dissent to 'modern evolutionary theory,' then it is morally the same as though you had yourself engaged in the behavior. The same goes for me, of course. 2) When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all
-
Kent Sharkey: "That's true, that would work as well, so have at ..." This could be interesting. I've been trying since late 2001 or early 2002 to get a proponent of 'modern evolutionary theory' to rationally discuss the matter I have in mind. And, by "proponent," I don't merely mean "Joe Schmoe with no background in biology." Some of the 'modern evolutionary theorists' I have tried to discuss this with are scientists with degrees in biology (or, rather, they have presented themselves as such and I have no reason to disbelieve the claim) -- and they have all acted as Chris Losinger acts. You are only the second 'modern evolutionary theorist' I have personally encountered who can even rationally deal with skepticism of the so-called theory (much less deal with the out-right mockery *I* heap upon it), and the other studiously avoided getting into a discussion of this matter. So there are 2 points to this particular post: 1) I think a discussion of this matter merits its own thread. So, I'll start a new topic/thread in the next day or so. It is my hope that this new thread will be a discussion/argument between the two of us to try to get at a certain truth. I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting. But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument. If *you* cannot bring yourself to stand against unreason and against irrational/illogical attempts to silence dissent to 'modern evolutionary theory,' then it is morally the same as though you had yourself engaged in the behavior. The same goes for me, of course. 2) When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent